Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
29 <br /> ATTACHMENT F <br /> Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report <br /> Table 3-25 summarizes the evaluation of detailed alternatives. <br /> 'fable 3-25 Summary of Detailed Alternatives Evaluation <br /> yL Alternative <br /> Ridership 2035 Ridership forecasts(without <br /> interlining on BRT)* <br /> 2035 Ridership forecasts(with interlining <br /> on BRT) <br /> 2035 System-wide transit ridership <br /> Transportation Traffic impacts <br /> Operations —- <br /> Travel times ` <br /> Expansion Ability for alignment to be extended in o <br /> Potential future i <br /> Stakeholder Public and agency suppor'r`" <br /> Support <br /> Economic development potential <br /> Environmental Property acquisitions <br /> Impacts <br /> Visual impacts <br /> Wetland and stream impacts `� 4 <br /> Section 4(0 resources impacts <br /> Air quality impacts <br /> Construction impacts <br /> Cost Capital costs wi <br /> Operating costs <br /> 'Daily boardings for BRT-High and BRT-low routes without interlined buses could potentially be higher as the <br /> model estimated the ridership assuming interlined buses. The BRT numbers thus do not account for <br /> passengers that would transfer from feeder buses to BRT if the feeder buses were not sharing the BRT <br /> guideway.I"Note agency support has not been evaluated at the time of this report. Ratings only include <br /> public support. <br /> The BRT-High and BRT-Low Alternatives clearly rate well in their ability to meet the first three project <br /> goals. Both BRT Alternatives outperform the LRT Alternative in their ability to meet Goal 3: Improve <br /> mobility through and within the study corridor, Goal 2: Increase transit efficiency and quality of service, <br /> and Goal 3: improve transit connections. The end-to-end travel time for the BRT Alternatives is slightly <br /> longer than the LRT Alternative; however, travel time does not seem to be a major differentiator with <br /> regard to passenger preference, as ridership on the BRT-High and BRT-Low Alternatives exceeds that of <br /> the LRT Alternative, even with a longer travel time. Additionally, while BRT-Low would result in <br /> marginally worse traffic impacts than LRT and BRT-High,traffic impacts is also not a major differentiator <br /> among the Build Alternatives. <br /> Each of the three alternatives – LRT, BRT-High, and BRT-Low also meet Goal 5: Foster environmental <br /> stewardship; however, the use of fossil fuels by buses makes LRT a more sustainable and desirable <br /> technology over the long term.And, while each would result in limited impacts to the natural and built <br /> Durham-Orange County Corridor Alternatives Analysis I July 201113-45 <br />